DEERFIELD — Aiming to incorporate suggestions made at an information session earlier this year, officials have presented a revised vision of the plan for the park on North Main Street, but some abutters continue to express concerns regarding whether the lot is buildable and how development might impact the neighborhood’s quiet nature.
The vision for the park, located just north of Frontier Regional School on North Main Street, now includes a revised driveway entrance to the parking lot; the addition of two bus spots close to the multipurpose building that will house concessions, restrooms and storage; a wildlife viewing area; a tennis court; and a basketball court.
“I’m very happy with this plan,” Recreation Department staff member Sue Antonellis said. “I think it takes care of many people’s concerns — putting the parking where it is now, that makes sense; the way the bandshell is oriented (to mitigate noise); having the storage and (concessions) right there.”
The parcel of land was purchased by the town after voters approved a $1.2 million appropriation at Annual Town Meeting last June for the construction of recreational fields, foot and bicycle paths, and parking. In October, Special Town Meeting voters approved an additional $1 million in Community Preservation Act funds toward the project.
In November, the Select Board opened up the floor for a public discussion on what the possible opportunities are for the land. In general, the town is looking at two multipurpose athletic fields with a walking trail wrapping around them.
At a recent Select Board meeting, during which the sole item on the agenda was to discuss the updated version of the plans, Town Administrator Kayce Warren explained that the process will involve “zoning relief” as the lot “is not pre-existing non-conforming.”
“Since this situation may exist in other properties that the town owns, we’re looking into options that might help us with this, but also maintain the momentum of the project,” she said. “We know towns across the commonwealth have passed bylaws to enable latitude for municipal facilities for redevelopment purposes.”
Warren said there are a few approaches that could be taken, one of which is a potential zoning change that would address development for a number of future projects.
“A zoning bylaw amendment may be a proposed amendment for the upcoming Town Meeting,” she said.
Additionally, the town intends to file a site plan review with the Planning Board, and a notice of intent with the Conservation Commission.
“The town has not had any significant development in 25 years, and this park project and other facilities are an opportunity for the town to have greater flexibility for the changing needs of residents,” said Select Board member Trevor McDaniel.
Although most residents at the meeting earlier this month were supportive of the revised plans, a few expressed concern for the project itself as well with some design elements.
“We have significant concerns … mainly about this largely intensive use, involving an access driveway and parking,” said attorney Michael Felton, speaking on behalf of his client Vera Mark, who is a part-owner of an adjoining parcel. “This seems to be something that will be a very large recreational space for the town, which will interfere with the quiet enjoyment of neighbors.”
Felton asked whether the design presented at the meeting would act as the site plan review to be filed with the Planning Board.
Police Chief John Paciorek, who has led the effort on the project, said no; a separate, stamped set of engineering plans would be filed with the Planning Board.
“But I think we’re three to six months from that point,” he noted.
The attorney for another abutter to the project told the Select Board that the town is “putting the cart way before the horse.”
“My client doesn’t want any development here,” said attorney Michael McClaughlin, who represents Judith Rathbone.
McClaughlin argued whether the lot is buildable, and if it was ever meant to be developed in this manner. He also asked how much money had been spent pursuant to the Town Meeting votes last year.
“I think the taxpayers, the voting citizens have a right to know … how much you’ve spent already,” he said.
Paciorek said so far the town has spent $272,000 on the land, and roughly $3,000 with a wetlands engineer.
“If you were wondering a rough number, with land purchase, $300,000,” he said.
As for the nature of the lot, Assistant Town Manager Jennifer Gannet said that lots characterized as “not a building lot” don’t necessarily involve construction being prohibited. For example, the town could change the zoning to allow a lot to become a legal building lot.
Select Board Chair Carolyn Shores Ness said the town is still collecting information.
“We’re not designing; we’re still collecting information,” she said. “We’re trying to get what people want.”